Aniruddha Bose

Supreme Court Restores Interim Injunction in Film Rights Dispute: Narendra Hirawat & Co. vs. Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Breach of contract, Contract Act, Judges, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 14(d), Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Restores Interim Injunction in Film Rights Dispute: Narendra Hirawat & Co. vs. Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an appellate court should interfere with a trial court’s order granting an interim injunction when the trial court’s decision was reasonable and judicially sound. CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Intellectual Property Rights Case […]

Supreme Court Restores Interim Injunction in Film Rights Dispute: Narendra Hirawat & Co. vs. Sholay Media Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies sub-letting under Delhi Rent Control Act: Puri Investments vs. Young Friends & Co. (23 February 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 227, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14, Judges, Sub-letting, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Sub-Letting Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Puri Investments vs. Young Friends & Co. (2022) Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1609 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6516/2019) Judges: Vineet Saran, J, Aniruddha Bose, J. Can a tenant be evicted for allowing medical

Supreme Court clarifies sub-letting under Delhi Rent Control Act: Puri Investments vs. Young Friends & Co. (23 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Control Act: M/S Puri Investments vs. M/S Young Friends & Co. & Ors. (23 February 2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 227, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 with Section 14, Eviction, Judges, Sub-letting, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Sub-letting Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Puri Investments vs. Young Friends & Co. (2022) Date of the Judgment: 23rd February 2022 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1609 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 6516/2019) Judges: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose. Can a landlord evict a tenant if

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Control Act: M/S Puri Investments vs. M/S Young Friends & Co. & Ors. (23 February 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Rejects Freedom Fighter Pension Claim Due to Lack of Evidence: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi (2022)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Eligibility Criteria, Government Schemes, Judges, Pension Law, Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Rejects Freedom Fighter Pension Claim Due to Lack of Evidence: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Eligibility for pension under the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980, specifically concerning the requirement of being an underground freedom fighter. CASE TYPE: Pension Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi &

Supreme Court Rejects Freedom Fighter Pension Claim Due to Lack of Evidence: Union of India vs. Krishna Modi (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes ex-post facto approval of charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 14

Supreme Court quashes ex-post facto approval of charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings can be validated by ex-post facto approval from the disciplinary authority. CASE TYPE: Service Law; Disciplinary Proceedings Case Name: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India & Anr.

Supreme Court quashes ex-post facto approval of charge memorandum in disciplinary proceedings: Sunny Abraham vs. Union of India (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the application of limitation periods under Consumer Protection Act: Bhasin Infotech vs. Neema Agarwal (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 13(2)(a), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 18, Judges, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Clarifies Prospective Application of Consumer Act Time Limits Date of the Judgment: December 6, 2021 Judges: Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aniruddha Bose Can a delay in filing a written response to a consumer complaint be excused if the application for condonation of delay was filed before the Supreme Court’s ruling on the

Supreme Court clarifies the application of limitation periods under Consumer Protection Act: Bhasin Infotech vs. Neema Agarwal (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Property Dispute: N. Tahera & Anr. vs. Seema Begum & Anr. (30 November 2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 137, Inherent Jurisdiction, Judges, Supreme Court of India, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Property Dispute: N. Tahera & Anr. vs. Seema Begum & Anr. (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of a dismissed Special Leave Petition in a property dispute. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: N. Tahera & Anr. vs. Seema Begum & Anr. Judgment Date: 30 November 2021 Date of the Judgment: 30

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Property Dispute: N. Tahera & Anr. vs. Seema Begum & Anr. (30 November 2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in property disputes: Akkamma vs Vemavathi (2021) INSC 724

/ Aniruddha Bose, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with Order II Rule 2, Declaration of Title, Injunction, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Property Law, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 34

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in property disputes: Akkamma vs Vemavathi (2021) INSC 724 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for declaration of title is maintainable when the plaintiff fails to prove possession but has claimed consequential relief of injunction. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Civil Case Name: Akkamma

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act in property disputes: Akkamma vs Vemavathi (2021) INSC 724 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Will in Haryana Land Dispute: State of Haryana vs. Harnam Singh (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Indian Succession Act, 1925, Indian Succession Act, 1925 with Section 63, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Second Appeal, Wills

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Will in Haryana Land Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can overturn concurrent findings of lower courts on the genuineness of a will in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute, Succession Case Name: State of

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Will in Haryana Land Dispute: State of Haryana vs. Harnam Singh (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes High Court’s suo moto recall of order: XXX vs. State of Kerala (2021) INSC 719

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 362, Criminal Law, Inherent Powers of High Court, Judges, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court quashes High Court’s suo moto recall of order: XXX vs. State of Kerala (2021) INSC 719 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can recall its own order quashing an FIR, after the order has been passed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: XXX vs. The State of

Supreme Court quashes High Court’s suo moto recall of order: XXX vs. State of Kerala (2021) INSC 719 Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Kiran Devi vs. Ravindra Kumar Yadav (2021)

/ Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Criminal Law, Judges, Review Petition, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Kiran Devi vs. Ravindra Kumar Yadav (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Review of a prior order of the Supreme Court. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Smt. Kiran Devi vs. Ravindra Kumar Yadav [Judgment Date]: November 16, 2021 Date of the Judgment: November 16, 2021 Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit J., Ajay Rastogi

Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Kiran Devi vs. Ravindra Kumar Yadav (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (2021)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Judges, M.R. Shah, Second Appeal, Specific Performance, Specific Relief Act, 1963, Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act, 1963 with Section 20

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit for specific performance can be dismissed for lack of specific averments of readiness and willingness and whether the discretionary power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be used to deny the

Supreme Court Upholds Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell: Sughar Singh vs. Hari Singh (2021) Read Post »

Scroll to Top